Nationals Arm Race

"… the reason you win or lose is darn near always the same – pitching.” — Earl Weaver

ESPN and Kiley McDaniel puts out his weird Nats Prospect list for 2024


Cade Cavalli is inexplicably left off the McDaniel list. Photo via Lookout Landing blog

I’ve buried the lede for this analysis in the title, but there’s no other way to say it. Kiley McDaniel has always been more focused on ceiling than floor in his prospect ranks, and that comes out pretty true in his list of 20-some odd Nats prospects for 2024.

We’re still waiting for two other major pundits to drop (MLBPipeline and Fangraphs) and a couple of lesser known ones (Bleacher Report if they do it, Prospects Live, and Prospect Digest) before I reveal my top 50. Also, BA added another 10 to their top 40 list, and they had some real interesting names get tacked on that i’ll mention in my eventual top 50.

Lets get right into it:

McDaniel RankLast NameFirst NamePosition
1CrewsDylanOF (CF)
2WoodJamesOF (Corner)
4GreenElijahOF (CF)
5SusanaJarlinRHP (Starter)
6LileDaylenOF (CF)
8Hassell IIIRobertOF (CF)
10HenryColeRHP (Starter)
11BennettJakeLHP (Starter)
12VaqueroCristianOF (CF)
13De La RosaJeremyOF (Corner)
16SykoraTravisRHP (Starter)
18RutledgeJacksonRHP (Starter)
19YoungJacobOF (CF)
21PinckneyAndrewOF (Corner)
22HerzDJLHP (Starter)

And some thoughts.

  • Ok, Crews-Wood-House at the top. Like everyone else.
  • Uh, where the hell is Cade Cavalli? McDaniel lists him as a 2023 prominent graduate … um, Kiley, the dude didn’t pitch in 2023. At all. And 60-day DL doesn’t count towards rookie eligibility. This is not a slight omission; it’s also drastically impacted where he ranked the entire Nats system (probably costing them 4-5 spots based on the loss of Cavalli’s future surplus value in his ranking system). It seems odd to make such a major mistake on a prospect who was clearly a top 100 guy a year ago before TJ.
  • Green at #4: told you he’s focused on Ceiling and not actuals. There’s some legitimate concern out there about Green and I’m not sure i’d have him at #4 overtop of the next set of names, but that’s the methodology of McDaniel. By way of comparison, he has Green HIGHER this year than he did last year despite the ridiculous K/9 rates he put up in Low-A. Wow.
  • Susana at #5. I mean, the only way i’d rank Susana #5 is if someone told me he was going to rise two levels this year and keep his ERA under 3.00. What evidence is there based on his performance so far that he’s projecting to be anything but a fire-balling 2-pitch reliever?
  • Lile at #6: I’m on record saying he’s overrated in some rankings already; how can you possibly put Lile above Hassell??
  • New signing Victor Hurtado at #9. Phew. That’s pretty bullish on a 16yr old who has yet to play an inning. I mean, that’s higher th an $4.9M signing Vaquero, who at least has made it to the states and got double the bonus money.
  • Cole Henry at #10. I like Henry, and I want him to be the #2 starter ceiling that he was looking like when he raced up the system. But he’s an orchid. TOS is hard to come back from. I know we just saw reports he was healthy and throwing … i’ll believe it when i see it.
  • De La Rosa at #13. Ridiculous. .240/.324/.361 with 129 Ks in 93 games in High-A, which he was repeating from the previous year as a 22yr old. He’s at least 10 spots too high here. Who would you rather have, right now? 22yr old DLR or 23yr old Pinckney?
  • Kevin Made at #14, also too high. He better be the 2nd coming of Ozzie Smith to rate this high based on how weak his bat is.
  • Rutledge all the way down at #18. That’s below Sykora (who’s yet to throw a pitch) and below Henry (who might be finished as a player). I mean, yeah i get it, he projects as a 5th starter right now and didn’t exactly light things up when he arrived, but he’s also a 1st rounder who rose 3 levels in 2023. Did they forget what made him a 1st rounder?
  • The back end of his list all seems to be pushed down like 6-8 spots lower than I’d have them, but nothing egregious.

Who’s missing?

  • No Angel Feliz, 2024 IFA $1.7M signing. Surprising given how much he likes ceiling.
  • No Armando Cruz, $3.9M signing in 2021. The shine is off of Cruz.
  • No love for Mitchell Parker, who just continues to get results year after year. Maybe one day we’ll be watching Parker sling up lefty pitches like Tom Glavine and we’ll be like, “oh well he doesn’t throw 95 so he’s still not a prospect.”
  • Interestingly, left out Andry Lara. Lara is all about the Ceiling. McDaniel had him ranked #9 last year!
  • TJ White: nowhere to be found after nearly being a top 10 guy last year. Why ding White for his 2023 performance but not Green?
  • Alex Call and Brenner Cox were in the mid teens last year. Not really advocating that they should have been included (Call exhausted his rookie eligibility), just noting that this is the folly of depending entirely on ceiling/future value.

Written by Todd Boss

February 14th, 2024 at 8:39 am

Posted in Prospects

27 Responses to 'ESPN and Kiley McDaniel puts out his weird Nats Prospect list for 2024'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'ESPN and Kiley McDaniel puts out his weird Nats Prospect list for 2024'.

  1. At least he’s consistent in his preference for potential ahead of everything else.

    But looking at this through that lens, Vaquero’s placement is interesting. Vaquero is another raw, toolsy player. While he doesn’t have the same raw power as Green, he’s still a physical specimen (6’3″, and FanGraphs continued the football comparison that Green gets to his LB father, but described him as merely a “wide receiver”) with major projectability. In 2023, they played at the same level (majority spent in FCL with an unsuccessful stint in Fburg). The difference is that Vaquero is a whole year younger than Green, and doesn’t have giant 40% red flags around his strikeout rate. Vaquero’s has hovered around a healthy 20 K%. Add in the IFA bonus pedigree, and I don’t really understand why anyone would not only rate Green ahead of Vaquero, but to place him 8 spots ahead.

    Also agreed on Cruz, Cox and White, who are also unrealized potential but higher ceiling prospects.


    14 Feb 24 at 12:18 pm

  2. I agree with much of Todd’s rant, although I’ll bet him 50 cents that Lile turns out to be better than Hassell. And I’d put down a whole dollar that Pinckney will be better than both. But I also understand why Pinckney would be ranked behind both at this point.

    Will makes a very valid comparison of the rankings of Green and Vaquero. (Green’s father was actually a tight end, BTW, and was huge, listed at 6-5, 280.)

    There’s nothing to argue that Made should be in the top 20 on any list right now, either based on ceiling or actual performance. I don’t think I’d argue that Armando Cruz is any better, though. Our friend FredMD seems high on draftee Marcus Brown. I hope he’s right. (In a related note, I’ll be interested to see if they keep playing Lipscomb at SS some. The organizational depth at that position is terribly thin.)

    While Lara hasn’t lived up to the hype, when I look at his stats, I usually end up saying “not as bad as I thought.” He posted a 1.26 WHIP at A+ at age 20, allowed only 1 HR per 9 IP, gave up a hit less per 9 than he did at A. His K’s are way down, though. BUT . . . his arm is healthy, which can’t be said for the majority of guys being ranked. And relatively speaking, his performance was way better than that of guys like Green and Cruz on the hitting side.


    14 Feb 24 at 1:37 pm

  3. Hmmm. Lile better than Hassell. yeah i’ll take that bet. I think Lile is an undersized corner OF with no power. I’m just not sure how that plays at higher levels if he can’t man center. Meanwhile Hassell has the arm and the defense for CF, which gives him added positional flexibility.

    BA scouting grades for both:
    – Hassell: Hit: 50 | Power: 40 | Run: 55 | Field: 55 | Arm: 55
    – Lile: Hit: 55 | Power: 45 | Run: 50 | Field: 50 | Arm: 45

    Hassell’s hit and power tools are below Liles per BA … but their slash lines are almost identical for their careers and Hassell has 4x the number of homers as Lile. Yes Lile was in wilmington last year … but Hassell broke his hamate bone so its a wash.

    Todd Boss

    14 Feb 24 at 2:48 pm

  4. It shouldn’t be overlooked that Lile was playing this season recovering from TJ which kept him out all of 2022.

    Also, Hassell has 3 times the number of plate appearances as Lile. When you look at their power-based rate stats and not counting ones, Lile’s power is more apparent. Lile’s SLG is .424, compared to Hassell’s .398.

    Consider me an interested observer to this bet. But we’re going to need at least one of them to turn into a productive big leaguer if this rebuild is going to pan out.


    14 Feb 24 at 4:02 pm

  5. Being CF-capable is a big tick in Hassell’s favor, but even so I’m the low man on him, I think. He’s 15th on my list. (With Lile 11th and Green 10th)

    He was playing poorly before he broke his hamate. I don’t love playing armchair therapist, but to me the most likely story is that the hype of the trade got to him and his issues are mental. He also had his worst month right after Wood was promoted to AA (29 wRC+ for 112 PAs). Maybe that’s a coincidence, but maybe he felt the footsteps and was pressing.

    But the biggest issue for me is that, even when he was on the top 100 lists, the case in his favor was that he was a high-floor guy who was almost ready, and we’re seeing pretty incontrovertible evidence that the floor and the timeline weren’t what we thought.

    Some players are just advanced for their age but then never develop in a way that can succeed at the higher levels.

    Of course, I’d love it if I’m wrong and it’s just injury complications. He is still quite young.


    14 Feb 24 at 4:47 pm

  6. Also, this isn’t important but it’s bothering me — BA has Pineda (who isn’t even rookie eligible) at both #21 and #32.

    Maybe I’m misreading it but, if not, yuck. That’s really sloppy.


    14 Feb 24 at 4:52 pm

  7. It seems that the Powers That Be have decided that Crews is the center fielder of the near future. That puts more pressure on everyone else to show corner-level power. That’s part of the reason I give Pinckney a slight leg up on Hassell and Lile right now. Pinckney had 22 homers and 20 doubles across 105 college and pro games last summer. Hassell is nine months younger, Lile two years younger, with more time to grow into some power.

    I’m rooting for all of them to make it. Give us the “good” problem of having a log jam. But that almost never happens.

    I will note that with more SB opportunities in the majors now, it will be interesting to watch the running numbers for these guys as well. Last summer Lile stole 23 bases (plus a remarkable 10 triples), Pinckney 19, and Hassell 15. Pinckney barely ran at Bama, though, with only 9 attempts in 64 games. They all appear to have the speed to be 30-steal guys in a full MLB season, as do Green and Vaquero.


    14 Feb 24 at 7:31 pm

  8. SMS: why would Pineda not be rookie eligible? He has 4 major league appearances (all of which were in September). Am I missing something that would have caused him to lose eligibility?


    15 Feb 24 at 4:26 am

  9. Fangraph’s top 101 is now up:

    They usually buck general trends, as witnessed in the Nats featuring (and the order):
    6. Wood
    9. Crews
    57. Cavalli
    89. House

    Todd, I would also caution you to not wait until FG’s Nats system review. The team reviews typically drag into August, and in the past two years have come out in June and July.


    15 Feb 24 at 11:32 am

  10. Pineda rookie eligibility. A reminder: you need 130 ABs, 50IP or 45 days on the active roster.

    – Pineda only has 13 mlb ABs; still a rookie.
    – Pineda is not a pitcher so has zero IP.
    – … so it comes down to # of days on the active roster.

    Cots has his service type at 0.157 … that’s 157 days, well, well past the 45 days on active roster. How is that possible?

    lets look at his transactions:

    – 9/9/22: contract selected, called up. Plays out the rest of the season, which ended 10/5. We’ll call it 26 days.
    – 3/30/23: put on the 10day DL … oh, he wasn’t sent down first, he was put in the MLB 10-day dl. Wow. So his clock started.
    – 7/19/23: put on the 60-day dl … doesn’t change anything
    – 8/6/23: optioned to AA. So thats on the active roster all of April, May, June, and July plus 6 days in august. That’s 30+31+30+31+6 = 128 days.

    so 128+26 = 154 days … not the 170 that Cots has but well above 45 days.

    Pineda is not rookie eligible anymore. Damn. I’m taking him out of analysis.

    Todd Boss

    15 Feb 24 at 11:33 am

  11. Lile vs Hassell continuation. Both are kind of tough to evaluate based on injuries. Lile had TJ, Hassell had hamate bone breakage. their career minor league slash lines are pretty similar. Hassell is a year older, and a level ahead. Lile’s hit and power tool grades slightly higher than hasssells, but Hassell has the advantage in arm, field, and run.

    they’re actually pretty similar.

    Todd Boss

    15 Feb 24 at 11:35 am

  12. @Will – BR has him with almost a full year of service time and exceeding the rookie limits last year, but I suppose that could have been an error on their part. I don’t know how to easily verify how many days he was on the active roster but BR seems to think it was over 45. And I don’t think the september exception is a thing anymore.

    In any case, I don’t really care if they are going to include Pineda. Folks like Pineda (and Alu and Ward) still operate in the system like prospects. Graduating them off does seem to be the custom, but I’m not sure I think it makes a ton of sense and I’m fine with folks keeping them on their lists if they want.

    My problem was with including him twice.


    15 Feb 24 at 11:35 am

  13. So, something’s fishy with Pineda. And Cavalli, who BR also says ‘exhausted rookie status’ in 2023. Its all based on days on the active roster and not AB/IPs. I think its fair to say that these prospect shops are going by IP/PAs and not service time because teams do so much manipulation of it.

    Todd Boss

    15 Feb 24 at 2:33 pm

  14. Keith Law/The Athletic’s nats top 20 just dropped, so i’ll write that up soon.

    Remaining major pundits: MLBpipeline, Fangraphs (which didn’t come out til June last year, so we won’t be waiting for them). Remaining minor pundits: Bleacher Report/Joel Reuter (which may not actually do a ranking), ProspectsLive (who puts most behind a pwaywall), ProspectsDigest (which didn’t come out til April last year). So, I’ll probably publish my top 50 list after MLBpipeline publishes theirs.

    I’m keeping Pineda (and Cavalli) in as rookies based on IP/AB not on service time. This seems to be what other shops are doing even if ESPN didn’t.

    Todd Boss

    15 Feb 24 at 4:07 pm

  15. Fair enough on Pineda and Cavalli.

    For consistency’s sake, if you just use IP/PA cutoffs, I think the following are also still eligible:

    La Sorsa
    Robert Garcia


    15 Feb 24 at 4:45 pm

  16. I more or less still consider guys to be “prospects” until they’ve made it or moved on. Kieboom and Adon still haven’t made it. “Developmental assets?”

    I’m more intrigued by Longenhagen (Fangraphs) ranking Wood ahead of Crews, which is the first shop to do do I believe. And he does so for the reason I see: if Wood truly reaches his potential, he’s a generational talent.

    That’s a real problem with these ratings, and I was thinking about it a couple of days ago while reading Longenhagen’s “how’s my driving” piece looking at the 2017 prospect class: the focus is all on ceiling, but not on floor. But instead of giving full ceiling, they hedge it by floor risk. I mean, he give Wood a chance of reaching 80 in both game and raw power, but he only makes him a 60 overall.

    What if they gave grades for both ceiling and floor? What if you added them together? Hmm . . .

    Wood — ceiling: 70; floor: 40; total: 110
    House — ceiling: 65; floor: 45; total: 110
    Crews — ceiling: 60; floor: 45; total: 105
    Cavalli — ceiling: 55; floor: 45; total: 100

    It may need some tinkering, but that’s an interesting approach. (I may be shorting Crews’s floor by 5 points, etc., just doing this kind of randomly. And I know many wouldn’t rank House in the same class with Wood and Crews. But if he truly shows 40-HR power, he’ll be one of the top 20 players in the game.)

    I also see an interesting value balance between guys with alleged big talent who haven’t done anything against guys who have but have a limited ceiling:

    Green — ceiling: 60; floor: 20; total: 80
    Jacob Young — ceiling: 45; floor: 35; total: 80

    I guess the practical peek number would be about 120: 70 ceiling; 50 floor. That would seem to be Holliday right now.


    15 Feb 24 at 5:41 pm

  17. @KW – I like that line of thinking generally but I’m not sure that’s the best specific solution. For one thing, for almost all prospects the realistic floor is a complete bust.

    But I could be into a blended formula like you’re describing between, say, the median projection and the 80th percentile projection.

    So going back to your discussion about our 5 options for the 3rd OF: Green, Lile, Vaquero, Pinckney and Hassell.

    By median projection, maybe we give Vaquero and Lile 45s, Hassell like a 42, Pinckney a 40, and Green a 35. And then for the 80th percentile, maybe it’s Green with a 60, Vaquero a 55, and Lile, Pinckney and Hassell all 50s. (You might have different numbers here, of course. This is just an example and I am admittedly the low man on Hassell.)

    But if we average those numbers and rank, we get an order of Vaquero, Lile + Green (tied), Hassell, Pinckney. Which is incidentally pretty much how I rate them.


    15 Feb 24 at 7:34 pm

  18. It’s certainly an interesting idea to play around with. I do think there needs to be something that provides the true ceiling but also accounts for a floor/lack of development. Agreed that the true floor is basically 20 (total washout), but some have progressed up the ladder to the point that it seems reasonable to give them at least an MLB bench role. Of course even that isn’t guaranteed. (Just ask Carter Kieboom.)

    Maybe the second number isn’t floor so much as some calculation of levels mastered minus risk level (low/medium/high). Speaking of that, from my numbers above, after reading Longenhagen’s evaluation, I think that I’d lower House from 45 to 40 for the second number, as scouts apparently still see significant swing-and-miss risk.

    I’ve continued to play with it with a bunch of the rest of the outfielders, following SMS’s lead. I’m not as high on Hassell as I am some of the others (as I have written), but I can live with him coming out on the high end of the list for now since a full season at AA gives him a pretty good shot at a floor of MLB bench.


    Hassell: 55/40/95
    Lile: 55/35/90
    Vaquero: 60/25/85
    Pinckney: 55/30/85
    Green: 60/20/80
    J. Young: 45/35/80
    Cox: 55/20/75
    De la Rosa: 45/25/70


    15 Feb 24 at 8:27 pm

  19. Just digging into Law. Wow, Lile at #5, despite saying he may struggle to get above 15-20 homers (which is my take/concern). Kevin Made at #9 is a real blow to credibility, as we’ve discussed on other lists. Why can’t people get that this guy was really bad? (As always, I would love for him to prove me wrong.)

    Interesting to see Law say that he thinks Crews’s ceiling is to be among the league leaders in all triple slash categories. For his SLG to get there, he really is going to have to be the new Tony Two-Bags with the doubles, as I have him pegged as a 20-25 HR guy most of the time.

    (Speaking of Rendon, I saw the other day, I think in an Athletic newsletter, that he’s on track to be the highest-earning 3B of all time. Wow. Of course a lot of that is going to end up being on a bad contract, but for about a five-season period, through his first year in Anaheim, he was something special.)


    15 Feb 24 at 8:45 pm

  20. Interesting thought exercise, which actually has already been covered in FG’s top 100. If you click the green “expand” button at the end of each player description, you get a probability outcome chart. If you compare Wood to Crews, you’ll see the differences quite clearly. Wood is a sort of boom-or-bust prospect, while Crews has a much stabler probability outcome across the levels, but significantly less potential for super-stardom.

    On the floor estimations, I’d echo SMS’s point, that you’re being far too generous in their floors. Every single prospect’s floor is 20. Giving House a 45 is saying that tomorrow House could generate around 1-2 WAR in the majors. Clearly, there’s a very possible outcome that he turns into Carter Kieboom, and posts negative WAR every season. Likewise for Crews turning into Victor Robles, who has been worth a grand total of 0.4 WAR over his past four seasons.

    Now, maybe that likelihood is smaller for House becoming Kieboom, than it is for, say, Trey Lipscomb, or Crew becoming Robles than Green. But it’s a very real possibility, where the focus should be only the likelihood rather than setting rather arbitrary and hard floors.


    16 Feb 24 at 6:39 am

  21. Wow, they give House a 40% chance of being a bust. That’s . . . not good. I actually trust House’s odds of making enough contact more than I do Wood’s. See House’s .324 BA at AA (in more limited sample) vs. Wood’s .248.

    I’m glad everyone is so high on Crews. I am too, although as we were discussing on the last post with Benintendi, when you don’t have big power, the eye of the needle to thread to real stardom is narrow. We’ve hit on similar points with Hassell and Lile. But maybe Crews hits more homers than I expect.

    As for my admittedly experimental attempt at a ranking formula, I think guys who have made AA and played well there can be at least a 35 floor, basically AAAA shuttle guys. As I already said, I may have House’s floor too high. 30 would be played well at A+ but not, or not yet, at AA.


    16 Feb 24 at 10:47 am

  22. @Will – I also really love FG’s decision to give us more information about the shape of the distributions. I wish they’d add that feature to the team lists because I think the variation is even more important and impactful when you get away from the top prospects and into the FV45s and FV40s.

    I also hope that they eventually are able to present it in a way that allows for easier analysis across multiple prospects. Comparing the charts for Wood and Crews is great and informative, but if I wanted to pick out their 5 or 10 FV50s with the highest bust risk, it would take me a ton of work. Beyond the chart, I want something like columns for bust %, 50% projection, and 80% projection.

    @KW – Law’s take on Made jumped out at me too. Yes, he’s young for the level, and yes he’s SS-capable, but it’s not like he has 70 glove as a carrying tool. And even before he cratered post-trade he was failing to put up league average production despite repeating the level. I have him like 40th on my ranking.

    But Law lives in Wilmington and probably saw him live at least a half dozen times. So if he’s seeing physical projection or if he’s seeing fixable swing issues, then that it actually quite encouraging and I’m inclined to give it at least a little credence. He did have a .180 BABIP during his post-trade nightmare; maybe that’s partially bad luck and not all piss-poor contact quality?

    I need to think about it some more, but I might end up bumping him 5 or 10 spots based on Law’s report. I know I’m mostly scouting stat lines and recognize the limits of that.


    16 Feb 24 at 1:08 pm

  23. Made only played 22 games for Wilmington (presumably some on the road) at a time when Law likely had stopped going since Wood and House had already left town. Maybe he saw him a couple of times when other players of note were in town. I think most of his reputation was formed in the Cub organization, as others played him up as well at the time of the trade.

    There’s not much in his offensive stats that generate excitement. He’s had difficulty getting his BABIP over .300 anywhere, leading to the conclusion that his contact is pretty soft. He did have a relatively encouraging 21 doubles in 92 games, but he only stole 4 bases while getting caught 4 times.

    Maybe he turns out to be not that bad, but the SMS point is well taken: the issue is that there are A LOT of guys in the system at least as good as he is, probably better. Law has him ranked ahead of (in order): Sykora, Susana, Green, Bennett, Rutledge, Henry, Herz, Young, and Pinckney. Even if one is really optimistic about Made, that’s a VERY tall order of a bet that he’s going to be better than all of those guys, including two who have already seen time in the majors.


    16 Feb 24 at 3:55 pm

  24. Where do they get their information??? From the same folks who told the world that Antuna was going to be a superstar!

    From Law: “The Nats’ people have long loved infielder Sammy Infante, but he hasn’t hit in two years in Low A and will move to High A this year at age 23, so the sand is running thin.”

    Hopefully the “Nats’ people” to whom he refers are the ones who have been reassigned or told to find other employment.


    16 Feb 24 at 4:00 pm

  25. @KW – Just to be clear, I 100% agree with your take on Made. I have a group of guys at the borderline of what I consider legit prospects: (N Nunez, Parker, Brzykcy, Saenz, Feliz and Shuman), and Made is definitely below that group for me and all the guys you listed are above that group.

    I was just thinking about moving Made up within the long tail of fringe prospects that need to have back to back upside surprises to become above replacement major leaguers. Would you rather have him or White? Cruz? Aldo Ramirez? De La Rosa? Once you get 30+ deep they’re all pretty flawed.


    16 Feb 24 at 4:20 pm

  26. Between Made and Cruz . . . can I vote for Marcus Brown? I know that there’s an age difference, but as of now, among the three, Brown is the one I would give the best chance of hitting enough at AA to make himself interesting.

    Of the guys you mentioned, I’d take White if this was a trade offer. He “played up” in a bad power park while learning a new position. Some had a 70 power grade on him coming out of high school. (At some point can we have the discussion of how much the Wilmington park may be hurting the development of our young hitters, particularly guys like White and de la Rosa?) I guess de la Rosa will get a social promotion to AA. It’s tempting to say that it’s his last chance to show something, but he’s only 22. However, there’s been such an influx of OF talent in the organization that he already seems like an afterthought.

    Is Aldo Ramirez a Sidd Finch comp, or Christian Garcia? Dude hasn’t pitched during the time that Schwarber has hit NINETY-THREE home runs (2 years). I want to believe that there’s something in that unicorn, but . . . (It is interesting that the Nats made Joel Hanrahan the organizational rehab pitching coordinator. We think first of Cavalli, Henry, and Bennett, but Ramirez may also be in that group. Presumably, they may all stay in FLA for a while. Bennett certainly will.)


    16 Feb 24 at 10:22 pm

  27. @KW: Actually Schwarbs has hit 100 HRs since the trade. Of course, 93 of those are irrelevant, since they have come after he would have left the Nats as a free agent after 2021. He put up about 1.4 WAR in 2021 after leaving the Nationals, and that’s the measure that Ramirez is hopefully chasing. That’s of course for that specific trade. Aldo Ramirez was essentially a lottery ticket, and most lottery tickets don’t cash out.

    John C.

    17 Feb 24 at 10:46 pm

Leave a Reply